Deconstruction of the Introduction

The following deconstructs each paragraph in the introduction of this text in order to identify what argument is being made, and how it is being articulated.

The authors begin by setting the context for their work as somewhat unusual for the CHI community: while the paper is about an experimental camera product, they note that the text will not offer an empirical assessment of the product, but will instead emphasize how the product is used—even through “imaginary” usage.

Experimental and imaginary products are fairly unique at CHI, and the authors reinforce the non-traditional nature of their product design by quoting the brand messaging from its packaging, which explains that the camera includes a memory card encased in concrete; to view images, a user must physically destroy the product. By the end of the second paragraph, the authors have clearly delineated their work as that of critical design, and as unusual.

Next, the authors introduce the problem they are solving through this paper, which is a problem of how the CHI community understands critical design work itself. They indicate that while there have been a small number of attempts in CHI to use provocatively designed artifacts as a form of critical knowledge development, they are aware that this work would be evaluated against a more traditional set of criteria that expects a focus on usability, as evidenced through a user study. They describe that, instead, they will strive to establish an alternative context for discussing and analyzing “this type of work”, which is work that is intended to provoke and critique.

The authors end the introduction by describing that they will work to reframe how readers consider “usage” of a product, challenging the assumption that a design is only valuable when actually used; they will argue that imaginary and conceptual uses of products are equally as valuable as real usage. Once this reframing has occurred, they will then introduce the camera product in detail, to show how thinking of use in new ways is valuable for design researchers.

Paper’s Contributions to HCI

The main contribution of this paper to the HCI literature is the delineation of scholarly space for critical design through real product design, development, and packaging, particularly of designs intended to provoke imagination and discussion. The authors have carved out a space of legitimacy for a unique research method (making short-run products, where the making itself is the research) and for a unique type of design (making objects with counterfunctionality and inhibitive interfaces). They make these contributions clear through a rhetorical mechanism: they ask, and answer, a hypothetical but likely question a reviewer may have: “Why didn’t you empirically study others’ firsthand use?” Their answer includes a description of the main value of design artifacts as a research tool. They then repeat and add detail to this statement of contribution in the conclusion, emphasizing that they have articulated both new product design and methodological concepts.

The Bodies of Literature the Paper Draws On

This paper is drawing from, and building on, knowledge from critical design fields such as slow, reflective, adversarial, and ludic, and studies from non-use and busyness. Scholars in these areas often provoke reflection or reconsideration of theory through the use of conceptual artifacts that are non-traditional or challenging to understand. The authors note their work builds on investigations from Gaver, Beaver, and Benford, and from Sengers and Gaver, who explore how eliminating expected functionality can positively encourage creative thinking. The authors clearly delineate their own work in this text as new, as their goal is “to translate critical arguments into material, thingly forms.”

Main Findings

The authors provide five main findings from their work, which they describe as “conceptual uses” of their work. User interfaces can be made inhibitive in desirable ways, and purposefully pursuing that inhibitiveness is a design tactic. A strategy of design that encourages approaches like inhibitiveness is a strategy of counterfunctionality, and can be broadly used when designing artifacts. When used effectively, this strategy introduces elements that are enabling limitations, and removing functionality can have positive results. Pursuing approaches like this can be thought of as designing digital limitations. And, when designing digital limitations, it’s important to understand them as positive attributes in a larger whole; the counterfunctionality can be thought of as primary or “firsthand” uses of an object, not simply viewed as efforts to provoke.

Main Takeaways for HCI Based On The Findings

This paper offers two primary takeaways to the HCI community. First, it provides a strategic approach to design called counterfunctionality, and demonstrates that this approach can have a positive impact on product design by purposefully limiting desired functionality. Next, it provides a different way of thinking about design knowledge: that design knowledge exists “within” artifacts, and that the artifacts can “speak for themselves.”